5 ms·

most of the 'bad sugar' in the us is from HFCS. there is only so much cane sugar one can consume. (plus, the bush family has supported the florida sugar cartels

most of the 'bad sugar' in the us is from HFCS. there is only so much cane sugar one can consume. (plus, the bush family has supported the florida sugar cartels..the fanjul brothers from cuba. google it if curious. that's a whole another topic and would distract.) sugary drinks are the worst culprit and sugar is too expensive for it. high fructose corn syrup, otoh. but here is a dirty secret: corn is subsidised by the govt. and HCFS is the by product of our mid western corn. and instead of dumping it, it gets back into local consumption. in a way, we are funding our own HCFS based diseases. i think i have come to a point..in the past 8 years i have been farming..where i can pretty much connect every societal and financial and environmental ill to farm subsidies. cancel farm subsidies forever and the pandora's box will disappear. poof!

froh 6y ago
> I think i have come to a point..in the past 8 years i have been farming..where i can pretty much connect every societal and financial and environmental ill to farm subsidies. Interesting. Could you detail a bit on how farm subsidies create ill? Or link to some articles which do?
- jelliclesfarm 6y ago
  it is a very involved topic. but here is something from 2016 that speaks of it and is relevant to the HCFS/bad diet issue: https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/07/18/486051480/we-subsidize-crops-we-should-eat-less-of-does-this-fatten-us-up https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/07/18/486051480/we... [..]Americans are told to fill 50 percent of our plates with fruits and vegetables. But here's the contradiction, as the researchers see it: U.S. agriculture policies "focus on financing the production of corn, soybeans, wheat, rice, sorghum, dairy and livestock," the researchers write. About $170 billion was spent between 1995 and 2010 on these seven commodities and programs, according to the researchers.[..] [..]"Higher consumption of calories from subsidized food commodities was associated with a greater probability of some cardiometabolic risks," the authors conclude. For instance, they found a higher probability of both obesity and unhealthy blood glucose levels (which raises the risk of Type 2 diabetes) among people who consumed the most calories from subsidized foods.[..] having pasted the above, the article also takes the other side(because. NPR)..and i have points of disagreement with this bit: [..]Consider this: Sugar hooked us on yogurt. Americans eschewed yogurt until Dannon began adding sugary jam to the bottom. Same story with cereal. Adding sugar to tasteless flakes drove up sales. And then there's the idea that crop subsidies don't necessarily make food cheaper. Here are two reasons why. First, only a tiny slice — an estimated 15 percent — of the price we pay for processed foods, say, a box of cornflakes or cookies made with wheat and corn syrup, actually goes to the farmer.[..] why? because all the excess production has to go somewhere. because school lunches and food bank supplies have certain guidelines. why is smuckers jam approved for school cafeterias? and the other grape jelly guy. i forget the name. because smuckers agrees to buy the excess HFCS. HFCS also in peanut butter. the healthy vegetables and fruit isnt subsidised. only commodity crops. and only a small portion of it is for human food consumption. and it's only for commodities that is listed on the stock exchange. its the same with ketchup. ever wondered why we have HFCS in our tomato ketchup? and school cafeterias menu includes french fries and ketchup..both of which were considered to be part of the 'daily 5' vegetables/fruits for a balanced diet. it is also the reason for our high meat consumption and why its cheap. subsidies doesnt pay farmers. it pays them to continue farming for feed, ethanol and HFCS. the good and healthy food we eat comes from canada or south america. because it's cheaper to pay subsidies than hand over something as important as feeding 330 million people. we cant forget fibre(cotton) and dairy. both of these are dying or loss making sectors in the united states. its in absolute shambles. the guy making the money is the one who sells alfafa or hay. you can make more profits growing hay for feed than growing food for humans. and the guy who makes food for humans barely breaks even. and they are almost always collecting farm subsidies. fertiliser and input companies(looking at you, bayer nee monsanto!) have their hooks on all commodity crops. because you have to see this from the vantage point of wall street. after we have introduced derivatives, futures and options etc..its a feverish speculative game. with algos running everything now, its certainly not about food anymore. it's a ponzi scheme. farms exist to make profits for inputs, tractor/machinery and seed companies. they are all publicly listed companies. connect the dots. and farms are propped up by tax payer dollars. pension companies and insurance companies buy farmland and play in the stock market. it goes back to paying pensions and medicare and benefits etc. this house of cards may or may not come toppling down. but its still a house of cards. most of the feed and fodder grown..esp soy..was going to china. and as exports. we produce so much and we dont need as much. it helps balance our budget. or at least work with it. meanwhile..our waterways and aquifers are poisoned. farmers get caught in debt traps and imprisoned by unending credit. land rich but cash poor. so much poison in our waters and soil. the number of cancers have sky rocketed amongst farmers. i am not a luddite. but we cant ignore ground reality. 330 million is a lot. its not as much as the 1400 million of china or india..but it's still one of the more populous nations in the world. food security for this country is no joke. but we are holding on to depression era policy when it comes to farm subsidies. a generic wiki entry on ag subsidies here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy
  - froh 6y ago
    I love involved topics, so thanks for the short flashlight. The link from monsanto via corn and hfcs to sweetened peanut butter and hfcs jam was especially interesting, and funds buying and then leasing out farm land is especially, umm, sweet. How come we've never labeled leases or patent licenses 'tax'? How come we only consider irs as unjustified money deduction? When in reality irs/taxation is the only lever to feed the skimmed cash back into the pockets who actually did the work? The older I get, the better I understand the new deal.
    - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
      i am giving a quickie answer because i like to type long and rambling stream of consciousness answers..and hopefully i will be able to do that in a few hours because this is my one of my absolute favourite subject for chatting. actually, subsidies and supply chains are the flavours of the season. its difficult for me to shut up. but i do want to address this quickly here: >How come we've never labeled leases or patent licenses 'tax'? How come we only consider irs as unjustified money deduction? When in reality irs/taxation is the only lever to feed the skimmed cash back into the pockets who actually did the work? i just want to touch upon this from the pov of ag and ag subsidies that is tax payer funded. the primary motivation for ag subsidies and the 'new deal' was a good one. but it was from a different era and i am afraid that it has outgrown it's usefulness. subsidies were given to american farmers to grow food, to reduce surpluses and to protect prices. An Act to relieve the existing national economic emergency by increasing agricultural purchasing power, to raise revenue for extraordinary expenses incurred by reason of such emergency, to provide emergency relief with respect to agricultural indebtedness, to provide for the orderly liquidation of joint-stock land banks, and for other purposes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_Adjustment_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_Adjustment_Act : [..]The Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) was a United States federal law of the New Deal era designed to boost agricultural prices by reducing surpluses. The government bought livestock for slaughter and paid farmers subsidies not to plant on part of their land. The money for these subsidies was generated through an exclusive tax on companies which processed farm products. The Act created a new agency, the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, to oversee the distribution of the subsidies.[2][3][4] The Agriculture Marketing Act, which established the Federal Farm Board in 1929, was seen as an important precursor to this act.[5][6] The AAA, along with other New Deal programs, represented the federal government's first substantial effort to address economic welfare in the United States.[7][..] further reading: https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/11/21/do-farm-subsidies-protect-national-security/fdrs-disastrous-experiment https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/11/21/do-farm-sub... and https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/1996/farm-bills-and-farmers-the-effects-of-subsidies-over-time https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/1996/farm-bills-and-f... i believe that we need an overhaul of ag in the usa. it gets mired in social justice and equality and how to redistribute land and creating villains and victims. all that has it's place..but there are also another important and relevant aspects to this. 1. automation of ag. 2. food sufficiency for our population and excess/surplus for trade 3. protection of habitat and environment. keeping farm land safe and protected from development and speculation. this isnt an easy topic and finding answers needs a lot of teasing and tugging to undo the knots. but ultimately, subsidies cannot be completely eliminated either because we dont want people to starve because they cant afford food. perhaps we need income supports rather than price supports. i dont harbour dogma on the subject of subsidies and am still learning. but in my experience of reading and learning and observing, subsidies are always messy. they have been net net harmful than good. there has to be a better way. we need creative solutions. i am sure we will get there. someday.
kube-system 6y ago
I don't like the prevalence of corn sugar in the US either, but I don't feel comfortable saying that we should outright cancel farm subsidies. I am not sure we want our food infrastructure to be subject solely to the whims of the free market. The free market doesn't care about geopolitics, land use, stability, weather, equitability, etc. "Efficiently allocating resources and maximizing profit" is a different goal than "everybody gets food every day".
- jelliclesfarm 6y ago
  https://www.thebalance.com/farm-subsidies-4173885 https://www.thebalance.com/farm-subsidies-4173885 : this is a good intro read: Farm Subsidies with Pros, Cons, and Impact .. it is very simplistic. And doesn’t address that the subsidized commodities are a small percentage of our food chain. In fact, most of it isn’t even for human consumption. It would make sense to see how other countries have dealt with subsidies and see how it works and doesn’t work. NZ for example has eliminated them. Canada has shifted its dairy subsidies from supply side the demand side. Etc. We still have to consider population size and GDP etc. Canadian population is close to California’s population. NZ population(5 million) is half the size of LA county(10 million at least). 2011 opinion piece : https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/dont-end-agricultural-subsidies-fix-them/ https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/dont-end-ag... 2020: https://reason.com/2020/02/29/trumps-proposed-cuts-to-farm-subsidies-dont-go-nearly-deep-enough/ https://reason.com/2020/02/29/trumps-proposed-cuts-to-farm-s... The situation is very nuanced.
rhino369 6y ago
The subsidy for HFCS is mostly just an import tariff on cane sugar. The subsidies increase the cost of sugar (HFCS, cane, beet, etc.). We are subsidizing farmers by increasing the cost to consumers. If we let the market decide the price, it would only lower the cost of sugar. I don't think there is any evidence that HFCS is appreciably worse than sucrose. The problem is added sugar of any type.
Aerroon 6y ago
What does HFCS contain? (High Fructose Corn Syrup) What does an apple contain? HFCS comes in mostly two forms HFCS 42 and HFCS 55. The number denotes the dry fructose content. The rest is glucose. This means that 100g of dry HFCS contains 55g of fructose and 45g of sucrose.[0] 100g of raw apples contains 10.39 g of sugars. 2.07g of sucrose, 2.43g of glucose, 5.9g of fructose.[1] Sucrose is fructose and glucose connected by a single oxygen atom. Sucrase in your small intestine splits sucrose into equal parts glucose and fructose. Effectively you're getting 6.935g of fructose and 3.465g of glucose or 66.7% and 33.3% respectively. Even if you want to keep sucrose separate If you press these raw apples into juice then you'll get a sugar profile that's not too dissimilar from the soft drink that's sweetened with HFCS. It really shouldn't matter which you drink. Blaming all of these issues on HFCS specifically just means that these companies will switch to something like "All Natural Apple Syrup" that has even more fructose than HFCS did. I do want to mention that eating an apple is different from drinking juice made from that apple. The fruit itself contains fiber, which will slow the absorption of sugar and will mitigate some effects of it. When you press a fruit into juice you tend to lose the fiber. [0] https://www.fda.gov/food/food-additives-petitions/high-fructose-corn-syrup-questions-and-answers https://www.fda.gov/food/food-additives-petitions/high-fruct... [1] https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/171688/nutrients https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/171688/n...
- froh 6y ago
  Why do you ask? The interesting question is another one: Why does apple juice have a glycemic index of 45, while a whole apple has a glycemic index of 38 and coke a glycemic index of 65, soft drinks going up to 75, and jelly beans up to 150, more than pure glucose? And how do apple juice, hfcs soft drinks and fruit juices increase the risk for heart disease? https://bmcnutr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40795-017-0168-9 https://bmcnutr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40795-01... The question of apples vs hfcs is sweet but misleading. Edit: oh you've added your own research. Thanks for that. My remark still holds, the real insight is that sweet drinks are no good for health, and hfcs even more so than succrose sweetened drinks. So no matter if apple.juice is similar in contents and effect as a coke, both should be a rare treat, and water and unsweetened tea and fresh apples are really a Good Thing (tm).
- 6y ago

froh 6y ago

> I think i have come to a point..in the past 8 years i have been farming..where i can pretty much connect every societal and financial and environmental ill to farm subsidies. Interesting. Could you detail a bit on how farm subsidies create ill? Or link to some articles which do?

jelliclesfarm 6y ago
it is a very involved topic. but here is something from 2016 that speaks of it and is relevant to the HCFS/bad diet issue: https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/07/18/486051480/we-subsidize-crops-we-should-eat-less-of-does-this-fatten-us-up https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/07/18/486051480/we... [..]Americans are told to fill 50 percent of our plates with fruits and vegetables. But here's the contradiction, as the researchers see it: U.S. agriculture policies "focus on financing the production of corn, soybeans, wheat, rice, sorghum, dairy and livestock," the researchers write. About $170 billion was spent between 1995 and 2010 on these seven commodities and programs, according to the researchers.[..] [..]"Higher consumption of calories from subsidized food commodities was associated with a greater probability of some cardiometabolic risks," the authors conclude. For instance, they found a higher probability of both obesity and unhealthy blood glucose levels (which raises the risk of Type 2 diabetes) among people who consumed the most calories from subsidized foods.[..] having pasted the above, the article also takes the other side(because. NPR)..and i have points of disagreement with this bit: [..]Consider this: Sugar hooked us on yogurt. Americans eschewed yogurt until Dannon began adding sugary jam to the bottom. Same story with cereal. Adding sugar to tasteless flakes drove up sales. And then there's the idea that crop subsidies don't necessarily make food cheaper. Here are two reasons why. First, only a tiny slice — an estimated 15 percent — of the price we pay for processed foods, say, a box of cornflakes or cookies made with wheat and corn syrup, actually goes to the farmer.[..] why? because all the excess production has to go somewhere. because school lunches and food bank supplies have certain guidelines. why is smuckers jam approved for school cafeterias? and the other grape jelly guy. i forget the name. because smuckers agrees to buy the excess HFCS. HFCS also in peanut butter. the healthy vegetables and fruit isnt subsidised. only commodity crops. and only a small portion of it is for human food consumption. and it's only for commodities that is listed on the stock exchange. its the same with ketchup. ever wondered why we have HFCS in our tomato ketchup? and school cafeterias menu includes french fries and ketchup..both of which were considered to be part of the 'daily 5' vegetables/fruits for a balanced diet. it is also the reason for our high meat consumption and why its cheap. subsidies doesnt pay farmers. it pays them to continue farming for feed, ethanol and HFCS. the good and healthy food we eat comes from canada or south america. because it's cheaper to pay subsidies than hand over something as important as feeding 330 million people. we cant forget fibre(cotton) and dairy. both of these are dying or loss making sectors in the united states. its in absolute shambles. the guy making the money is the one who sells alfafa or hay. you can make more profits growing hay for feed than growing food for humans. and the guy who makes food for humans barely breaks even. and they are almost always collecting farm subsidies. fertiliser and input companies(looking at you, bayer nee monsanto!) have their hooks on all commodity crops. because you have to see this from the vantage point of wall street. after we have introduced derivatives, futures and options etc..its a feverish speculative game. with algos running everything now, its certainly not about food anymore. it's a ponzi scheme. farms exist to make profits for inputs, tractor/machinery and seed companies. they are all publicly listed companies. connect the dots. and farms are propped up by tax payer dollars. pension companies and insurance companies buy farmland and play in the stock market. it goes back to paying pensions and medicare and benefits etc. this house of cards may or may not come toppling down. but its still a house of cards. most of the feed and fodder grown..esp soy..was going to china. and as exports. we produce so much and we dont need as much. it helps balance our budget. or at least work with it. meanwhile..our waterways and aquifers are poisoned. farmers get caught in debt traps and imprisoned by unending credit. land rich but cash poor. so much poison in our waters and soil. the number of cancers have sky rocketed amongst farmers. i am not a luddite. but we cant ignore ground reality. 330 million is a lot. its not as much as the 1400 million of china or india..but it's still one of the more populous nations in the world. food security for this country is no joke. but we are holding on to depression era policy when it comes to farm subsidies. a generic wiki entry on ag subsidies here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy
- froh 6y ago
  I love involved topics, so thanks for the short flashlight. The link from monsanto via corn and hfcs to sweetened peanut butter and hfcs jam was especially interesting, and funds buying and then leasing out farm land is especially, umm, sweet. How come we've never labeled leases or patent licenses 'tax'? How come we only consider irs as unjustified money deduction? When in reality irs/taxation is the only lever to feed the skimmed cash back into the pockets who actually did the work? The older I get, the better I understand the new deal.
  - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
    i am giving a quickie answer because i like to type long and rambling stream of consciousness answers..and hopefully i will be able to do that in a few hours because this is my one of my absolute favourite subject for chatting. actually, subsidies and supply chains are the flavours of the season. its difficult for me to shut up. but i do want to address this quickly here: >How come we've never labeled leases or patent licenses 'tax'? How come we only consider irs as unjustified money deduction? When in reality irs/taxation is the only lever to feed the skimmed cash back into the pockets who actually did the work? i just want to touch upon this from the pov of ag and ag subsidies that is tax payer funded. the primary motivation for ag subsidies and the 'new deal' was a good one. but it was from a different era and i am afraid that it has outgrown it's usefulness. subsidies were given to american farmers to grow food, to reduce surpluses and to protect prices. An Act to relieve the existing national economic emergency by increasing agricultural purchasing power, to raise revenue for extraordinary expenses incurred by reason of such emergency, to provide emergency relief with respect to agricultural indebtedness, to provide for the orderly liquidation of joint-stock land banks, and for other purposes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_Adjustment_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_Adjustment_Act : [..]The Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) was a United States federal law of the New Deal era designed to boost agricultural prices by reducing surpluses. The government bought livestock for slaughter and paid farmers subsidies not to plant on part of their land. The money for these subsidies was generated through an exclusive tax on companies which processed farm products. The Act created a new agency, the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, to oversee the distribution of the subsidies.[2][3][4] The Agriculture Marketing Act, which established the Federal Farm Board in 1929, was seen as an important precursor to this act.[5][6] The AAA, along with other New Deal programs, represented the federal government's first substantial effort to address economic welfare in the United States.[7][..] further reading: https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/11/21/do-farm-subsidies-protect-national-security/fdrs-disastrous-experiment https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/11/21/do-farm-sub... and https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/1996/farm-bills-and-farmers-the-effects-of-subsidies-over-time https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/1996/farm-bills-and-f... i believe that we need an overhaul of ag in the usa. it gets mired in social justice and equality and how to redistribute land and creating villains and victims. all that has it's place..but there are also another important and relevant aspects to this. 1. automation of ag. 2. food sufficiency for our population and excess/surplus for trade 3. protection of habitat and environment. keeping farm land safe and protected from development and speculation. this isnt an easy topic and finding answers needs a lot of teasing and tugging to undo the knots. but ultimately, subsidies cannot be completely eliminated either because we dont want people to starve because they cant afford food. perhaps we need income supports rather than price supports. i dont harbour dogma on the subject of subsidies and am still learning. but in my experience of reading and learning and observing, subsidies are always messy. they have been net net harmful than good. there has to be a better way. we need creative solutions. i am sure we will get there. someday.

kube-system 6y ago

I don't like the prevalence of corn sugar in the US either, but I don't feel comfortable saying that we should outright cancel farm subsidies. I am not sure we want our food infrastructure to be subject solely to the whims of the free market. The free market doesn't care about geopolitics, land use, stability, weather, equitability, etc. "Efficiently allocating resources and maximizing profit" is a different goal than "everybody gets food every day".

jelliclesfarm 6y ago
https://www.thebalance.com/farm-subsidies-4173885 https://www.thebalance.com/farm-subsidies-4173885 : this is a good intro read: Farm Subsidies with Pros, Cons, and Impact .. it is very simplistic. And doesn’t address that the subsidized commodities are a small percentage of our food chain. In fact, most of it isn’t even for human consumption. It would make sense to see how other countries have dealt with subsidies and see how it works and doesn’t work. NZ for example has eliminated them. Canada has shifted its dairy subsidies from supply side the demand side. Etc. We still have to consider population size and GDP etc. Canadian population is close to California’s population. NZ population(5 million) is half the size of LA county(10 million at least). 2011 opinion piece : https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/dont-end-agricultural-subsidies-fix-them/ https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/dont-end-ag... 2020: https://reason.com/2020/02/29/trumps-proposed-cuts-to-farm-subsidies-dont-go-nearly-deep-enough/ https://reason.com/2020/02/29/trumps-proposed-cuts-to-farm-s... The situation is very nuanced.

rhino369 6y ago

The subsidy for HFCS is mostly just an import tariff on cane sugar. The subsidies increase the cost of sugar (HFCS, cane, beet, etc.). We are subsidizing farmers by increasing the cost to consumers. If we let the market decide the price, it would only lower the cost of sugar. I don't think there is any evidence that HFCS is appreciably worse than sucrose. The problem is added sugar of any type.

Aerroon 6y ago

What does HFCS contain? (High Fructose Corn Syrup) What does an apple contain? HFCS comes in mostly two forms HFCS 42 and HFCS 55. The number denotes the dry fructose content. The rest is glucose. This means that 100g of dry HFCS contains 55g of fructose and 45g of sucrose.[0] 100g of raw apples contains 10.39 g of sugars. 2.07g of sucrose, 2.43g of glucose, 5.9g of fructose.[1] Sucrose is fructose and glucose connected by a single oxygen atom. Sucrase in your small intestine splits sucrose into equal parts glucose and fructose. Effectively you're getting 6.935g of fructose and 3.465g of glucose or 66.7% and 33.3% respectively. Even if you want to keep sucrose separate If you press these raw apples into juice then you'll get a sugar profile that's not too dissimilar from the soft drink that's sweetened with HFCS. It really shouldn't matter which you drink. Blaming all of these issues on HFCS specifically just means that these companies will switch to something like "All Natural Apple Syrup" that has even more fructose than HFCS did. I do want to mention that eating an apple is different from drinking juice made from that apple. The fruit itself contains fiber, which will slow the absorption of sugar and will mitigate some effects of it. When you press a fruit into juice you tend to lose the fiber. [0] https://www.fda.gov/food/food-additives-petitions/high-fructose-corn-syrup-questions-and-answers https://www.fda.gov/food/food-additives-petitions/high-fruct... [1] https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/171688/nutrients https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/171688/n...

froh 6y ago
Why do you ask? The interesting question is another one: Why does apple juice have a glycemic index of 45, while a whole apple has a glycemic index of 38 and coke a glycemic index of 65, soft drinks going up to 75, and jelly beans up to 150, more than pure glucose? And how do apple juice, hfcs soft drinks and fruit juices increase the risk for heart disease? https://bmcnutr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40795-017-0168-9 https://bmcnutr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40795-01... The question of apples vs hfcs is sweet but misleading. Edit: oh you've added your own research. Thanks for that. My remark still holds, the real insight is that sweet drinks are no good for health, and hfcs even more so than succrose sweetened drinks. So no matter if apple.juice is similar in contents and effect as a coke, both should be a rare treat, and water and unsweetened tea and fresh apples are really a Good Thing (tm).
6y ago